That doesn’t mean that the law is ignored or not enforced, only that the feds do not employ routine checks as a means to enforce it.
Damn, you’re right. I don’t know what I was thinking. Boy, that **Bricker **sure does know how to convince with technicalities, don’t he?
Seriously, Bricker- do you really think that nitpicking one word out of my post somehow makes you seem correct?
Objection. Conjecture.
Well, if the law is you must carry your green card and law enforcement does not check to see if you are carrying your green card seems unenforced to me.
I suppose in the course of busting someone for something entirely different they might toss in no green card as well.
snerk
And the “but the eeevil fascist cops will pull over & deport all the brown people” isn’t?
Of course the problem is how do you know who is supposed to be carrying a green card? That’s the main reason it isn’t enforced this way.
The cards are checked at the border. That’s the only time it matters. No nee to kep chcking it once they’re already across. It’s also simply not logistically possible to routinely stop and check millions of legal residents going about their business everyday to make sure they have their green cards on them.
I know the facts don’t actually matter to you, but I’ll provide them anyway: this “activist judge” you’re complaining about was appointed by Clinton, but nominated by Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican.
ETA: I see this was already addressed.
There are cites within this thread that quote the Feds as a source of info stating that there was an estimated 10-12 million illegal immigrants within the U.S.
Presumedly, this includes a number of folks who were not checked at the border, as they did not use a regular border crossing station. May I presume that you are not going to assert that all 10-12 million of those folks are visa over-stays?
Your method of enforcement will only block those who attempt to cross at the station, and not the fence hoppers.
What should be the method used to verify the legality of those who have made it over the border into the interior?
On the Preemption question, I don’t think anyone would deny that the Feds have accepted help from local law enforcement in regards to capturing and holding in confinement ne’er-do-wells in the past.
Example: http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1005/100517denver.htm
Why, when the Feds accepted help from Colorado in the quoted article, are they now saying that Arizona can’t now help the Feds identify suspects?
Note the arrest and deportation occured very recently.
Just guessing but I would say it is because Arizona tried to establish immigration policy. The feds are happy to have you help enforce the fed policy…just don’t make your own.
I am a little slow. What new immigration policy was created by Arizona?
That federal immigration law must be enforced by Arizona peace officers.
Perhaps “policy” was a bad choice of words. Nevertheless immigration law is firmly in the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Arizona Police Officer Calls Immigration Law 'Racist' - Personal Liberty® Some of those expected to enforce it disagree. They too have read it.
The opposition you mention can also point out that Arizona tried to pass a law so bad that the Courts ruled against its going into effect, and therefore those in opposition need to go to the polls in the full force and sweep out those who are pushing this law in the form in which it was originally passed.
So in my view… this is a good development.
Arizona wasn’t planning on deporting anyone, correct?
As far as I could tell, Arizona planned on turning over suspected illegals to ICE. ICE would then make the final determination of immigration status and deportation.
Am I wrong in that assumption?
The only wrinkle I can see is having local law enforcement trying to determine the vailidty of forged documents (if any) without training.
In what sense is that not an immigration policy?
If they came in illegally, they don’t have green cards, so there’s no way to force them to carry what they don’t have. How is constantly checking the cards of those who ARE her legally going to stop anyone from hopping the fence?
Not sure I follow. The law I’m talking about is the federal law requiring legal residents to carry green cards. If they’re here illegally, the law is moot. They can’t carry what they don’t have. Crossing the border illegally is not the same thing as being here legally and not taking your green card with you when you go to the post office.
Verify for what purpose? Not sure I understand your point here, or what it has to do with enfocing a federal law requiring people to carry green cards around everywhere they go. That’s a law that only affects legal residents, not illegal ones. How is harassing legal residents going to stop illegal immigration?
The feds have given states specific statutory permission to turn over known illegal residents to ICE if they are arrested for something else. The states do not have permission to enforce any part of immigartion law other than what tghe feds hav given them specific permission to, and they have no right at all to write their own laws. The Constitution gives the federal government sole jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization laws.
Listening to an Arizona sheriff on CNN this morning (sorry…no direct link but it is on their video page) he said if the law was in effect in Arizona the first thing that would happen is Arizona would prosecute the person. Once Arizona was done doing their bit then they’d turn them over to ICE to be dealt with.
Ooooooh, okay, now my turn to play:
I suspect that Republicans would like to create a program to harass and intimidate voters that look like illegal immigrants, there by eliminating that swell. Note that those voters are citizens who merely look like illegal immigrants.
And why not, ACORN had a program that got low income blacks to vote. Turns out Republicans didn’t like the way they voted, so ACORN was effectively destroyed.
Makes me wonder who is next? I suspect that Republicans realized they ran out of xenophobic, white, males. If you can’t get more people to vote for you, eliminate the people voting for the other guy.